Full text of "Philippine Electoral Almanac Revised And Expanded"

See other formats

REVISED AND EXPANDED EDITION

PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE

Philippine Electoral Almanac

Revised and Expanded Edition

Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office

ISBN 978-971-95551-6-2

All rights reserved. The content of this publication may be copied, adapted, and redistributed, in whole in
part, provided that the material is not used for commercial purposes and that proper attribution be made.
No written permission from the publisher is necessary. Some of the images used in this publication may be
protected by restrictions from their original copyright owners; please review our bibliography for references
used.

Published exclusively by

The Presidential Communications Development
and Strategic Planning Office
Office of the President of the Philippines
3/F New Executive Building,

Malacanan Palace, San Miguel, Manila
Website: http://www.pcdspo.gov.ph
Email: feedback@pcdspo.gov.ph

Book design by the Presidential Communications
Development and Strategic Planning Office

Published in the Philippines.

The National Library of the Philippines CIP Data

Recommended entry:

Philippine electoral almanac. - Revised and expanded
edition. - Manila : Presidential Communications
Development and Strategic Planning Office, 2015.

pages ; cm

ISBN 978-971-95551-6-2

1. Elections - Philippines - History. 2. Philippines
- Politics and government - History.

324.9599 JQ1418 2015 P520150313

BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines

PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE

MANUEL L. QUEZON III
Undersecretary of Presidential Communications
Development and Strategic Planning
Officer -in- Charge

JAN MIKAEL dL. CO

Assistant Executive Secretary

Senior Presidential Speechwriter and Head of Correspondence Office

JUAN POCHOLO MARTIN B. GOITIA
Assistant Secretary
Managing Editor, Official Gazette

GINO ALPHONSUS A. BAYOT
Director V

Head, Research Division

JONATHAN F. CUEVAS
Director IV
Technical Director

MA. ROMMIN M. DIAZ

Director III

Head Executive Assistant

YOLANDO B. JAMENDANG JR.

Director II

Head, Message Crafting Division

TERESITA L. MENDIOLA
Chief Administrative Officer

KATHERINE AIRA M. ESPINO
Institutional Memory
Official Gazette

MARK PHILIPPE P. LEGASPI

Heritage

KRISTINA D. JAVIER

Media Monitoring

SASHA B. MARTINEZ RAYMOND ANDREW C. MAYMAY ATTY. SARAH Q. SISON

Social Media Associate Editor Legal Concerns

Official Gazette

CHRISTIAN F. SOQUENO
Citizen Engagement
Official Gazette

PUBLICATIONS DIVISION

PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE

MANUEL L. QUEZON III
Editor in Chief

JUAN POCHOLO MARTIN B. GOITIA
Managing Editor

JOHN MICHAEL MENDOZA
Art Director, 2013

JONATHAN F. CUEVAS
Technical Director

JUSTIN S. GATUSLAO MARK PHILIPPE P. LEGASPI

Project Manager, 2013 Project Manager, 2015

CAMILLE ROSE DUFOURT

Project Coordinator

JEAN ARBOLEDA
MARK BLANCO
Researchers and Writers, 2013

SARAH JESSICA E. WONG
FRANCIS KRISTOFFER PASION
Researchers and Writers, 2015

CAMILLE DEL ROSARIO
JOI MARIE INDIAS
CHERIE LYNN TAN
ALEXIS TORIO

Graphic Designers and Layout Artists, 2015

BIANCA STELLA BUENO
CHERIE LYNN TAN

Graphic Designers and Layout Artists, 2013

SASHA MARTINEZ
Editor, 2015

KATRINA FERNANDO
POCHOLO GOITIA
SASHA MARTINEZ
RAYMOND ANDREW MAYMAY
Editors, 2013

CHEREY ANN MAE BIGAY
ROBERTO DANIEL DEVELA
CLINTON RONQUILLO
Researchers, 2015

MICA N. OLANO
MARK ERICK RAMIL
MARIA EMANUELLE TAGUDINA
Interns, 2013

MARY CLAIRE LORRAINE CAPUL
Copy Editor, 2015

MA. ROMMIN DIAZ
MITZI ONG
SANDI SUPLIDO
Support Staff, 2015

KAREN THERESE ROMINA G. SISON
Intern, 2015

1730 1761/1764 1785

1943 1943 1946

1873

1874

1935

1941

1940

1978

1985

1986

1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction i

Preface ii

Foreword iii

Philippine Elections by the Numbers vi

Pre-Colonial Period 1

Spanish Colonial Period 5

1894 Katipunan Elections 13

1897 Tejeros Convention 15

1898 Ratification of the Proclamation of Philippine Independence 18

1898 Malolos Congress 20

1899 Malolos Constitution 22

1899 Philippine Commission (Schurman Commission) 23

1899 First Local Election 25

1900 Philippine Commission (Taft Commission) 27

1902 First Gubernatorial Elections 31

1907 First Legislative Elections 33

1916 First Senate and House Elections 35

1922 Legislative Elections 39

1925 Legislative Elections 42

1928 Legislative Elections 45

1931 Legislative Elections 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1934 Legislative Elections

1934 Constitutional Convention

1935 Plebiscite

1935 Elections

1937 Plebiscite

1938 Legislative Elections

1939 Plebiscite

1940 Plebiscite

1941 Elections

1943 KALIBAPI Assembly Election

1943 KALIBAPI Assembly Presidential Election

1946 Elections

1947 Legislative Elections

1947 Plebiscite

1949 Elections

1951 Legislative Elections

1953 Elections

1955 Legislative Elections

1957 Elections

1959 Legislative Elections

1961 Elections

1963 Legislative Elections

100

1965 Elections

101

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1967 Legislative Elections

106

1967 Plebiscite

107

1969 Elections

108

1971 Legislative Elections

112

1973 Plebiscite

115

1975 Plebiscite

117

1976 Plebiscite

119

1977 Plebiscite

120

1978 Legislative Elections

121

1981 Plebiscite

123

1981 Elections

125

1981 Plebiscite

127

1984 Plebiscite

128

1984 Elections

130

1986 Elections

132

1987 Legislative Elections

135

1987 Plebiscite

137

1989-1990 Autonomous Region Plebiscites

138

1992 Elections

140

1995 Legislative Elections

145

1998 Elections

147

2001 Legislative Elections

151

2004 Elections

153

2007 Legislative Elections 157

2010 Elections 159

2013 Legislative Elections 163

Congress and the Presidency 165

Midterms: The Presidential Referendum 169

Coalitions 176

Geographical Distribution of Senators over Time 189

Moro Representation in the Philippine Legislature over Time 191

Voter Qualifications over Time 193

Defend it at Plaza Miranda:

196

A History of the Country’s Foremost Public Square

Timeline of the Philippine Presidency 200

The Evolution of the Philippine Legislature 218

The Evolution of Political Parties 221

Public Opinion over Time 223

GDP during Election Years 225

Glossary of Terms 227

Members of the Philippine Legislature over Time 231

Bibliography 274

Acknowledgments 276

INTRODUCTION

In light of the upcoming national and local elections, the Presidential Communications Development
and Strategic Planning Office (PCDSPO) pays tribute to this national exercise in democracy by
tracing the electoral history of the Philippines.

This new edition of the Philippine Electoral Almanac now goes as far back as the pre-colonial
period, and features legislative elections held since 1907. It explores the intricacies of the relationship
between Congress — the elected representatives of the people, who are bestowed legislative power —
and the President — the elected head of state and of government, who is granted executive power. It
likewise delves into the history of coalitions, the partnerships established between political parties
or personalities, as well as the national referendums that have allowed the people to express their
stand on fundamental political issues.

Despite their ubiquity, there has been a regrettable dearth of accessible and comprehensive information
on the history of Philippine elections. This project aims to respond to this lack, while fulfilling the
mandate of the PCDSPO as custodian of the institutional memory of the Office of the President. The
creation of the almanac entailed years of research, study, and analysis of authoritative documents
from a variety of government and private organizations. But the effort, we think, is well worth it.

The history of elections, an exercise of our collective sovereign will as a people, provides a context
with which to understand the young, flourishing Filipino nation. For despite war and dictatorship,
the Philippines has always managed to find its way back to the principle of democratic government:
one person, one vote, and the right to make a choice. The polls are at the heart of our political
culture; it is a signal for change and an emblem of our collective decisions — and of who we are as
one people and of what we value.

♦

The Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office (PCDSPO) was
established under the Office of the President by Executive Order No. 4, which was signed by
President Benigno S. Aquino III on July 30, 2010. The PCDSPO first published the Philippine
Electoral Almanac in 2013 to rectify the lack of easily accessible and comprehensible information on
the history of Philippine elections, while fulfilling its mandate as custodian of institutional memory
of the Office of the President.

According to the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines is both a republican and democratic State;
sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. As such, the
history of Philippine elections involves the evolution not only of the State, but also of the electorate
and the political class. Although the first edition of the Philippine Electoral Almanac was thoroughly
researched, the narrative it presented was still incomplete. In an effort to fill in those gaps, the
PCDSPO has created the 2015 updated and revised edition, which extends the narrative to the pre-
colonial period.

Months of painstaking research, fact-checking, writing, and layouting have resulted in a valuable go-
to resource that is not only comprehensive and comprehendible, but also visually appealing for the
new generation. To ensure that the narrative presented here is as coherent and complete as possible,
various sources were consulted: memoirs, newspapers on microfilm, scholarly books and journal
articles, contemporary reports and documents, official Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
results, and resources available on the Official Gazette website, such as historical briefers, executive
issuances, and speeches. Information from these sources were consolidated into write-ups, maps, pie
charts, bar graphs, and infographics that can be readily understood by anyone, especially those with
little to no formal background in Philippine electoral history

♦

Every three years, we, the people, go to the polls. We cast our votes by secret ballot, and await the
results that decree upon whom the sovereign people have conferred a mandate: whether for local
positions, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the vice-presidency, or the presidency.

This book provides a summary and guide to our national elections. They have determined the
history of our country: whether through the settling of questions of leadership, of policy, or the
legitimizing of regimes. They have also determined who can claim to be the nation’s leaders — or
leaders-in-waiting — first, through national elections for president and vice president every six years,
and second through midterm elections-as-referendum, which traces its roots to the restoration of
bicameralism in 1941. Since then, the Senate determined the results of the midterm referendum, since
no administration has ever lost the House. Before 1971, the midterm elections determined whether a
president’s ambition to succeed himself would be viable or not. The ability of a president to marshal
the votes for his or her legislative agenda is dependent on whether there is an administration-friendly
senate or not. The opposition to any sitting administration will, conversely, campaign to demonstrate
it is a viable administration-in-the-making, reinforcing the midterms-as-referendum dynamic.

This book identifies other trends, some that endure, others that suddenly emerge: the weakening
of party discipline, not least because of the removal of incentives for voting party tickets since bloc
voting had been eliminated; the replacement of party influence with the influence of other blocs,
such as religious groups; the rise of candidates who owed their prominence not to cursus honorum,
but to their ability to appeal directly to the people on the basis of celebrity, media prominence, or
appealing to constituencies such as the military or former guerrillas; and finally, the acceptance of
proxy candidates (usually family members) in the event that the original candidate is incapable of
continuing in the elections.

Aside from the national elections, the constitutional plebiscite is another avenue through which
we have addressed big questions of national importance. Our formal history of plebiscites began
on May 14, 1935, when we went to the polls for the first time, to approve or reject a proposed
constitution. In broad strokes, the various proposals to amend the constitution can be described as
either evolutionary, that is, to reform and improve the existing setup, or to make as clean a break
with the previous constitutional order as possible or mark a distinct new chapter in our national life
by means of promulgating a new constitution.

MANUEL L. QUEZON III

Editor in Chief
Philippine Electoral Almanac

III

<#• BY THE NUMBERS <#■

Sergio Osmena is
the only president
to have Lost
re-eLection to
the office to
which he
succeeded, f

Carlos P. Garcia and
Diosdado Macapagal were
the first president and
vice president to be
elected from two
opposing
political parties.

Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio
Osmena were the first president
and vice president elected by
the people. They were not
partymates but rather members
of a coalition (which coalesced
as the Nacionalista Party in
1938).

Two women have
served as president:
Corazon C. Aquino and
Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo. Both were also
swept into office by
People Power.

Three llocano presidents
have been elected:

Quirino
Magsaysay
Marcos

Only one president had
two vice presidents:
Macapagal-Arroyo had
Teofisto Guingona Jr.
(2001-2004) and Manuel
de Castro Jr. (2004-2010)

Three presidents who succeeded
to the presidency did not have a
vice president for the remainder
of the term to which they
succeeded:

Osmena, Quirino, & Garcia

Only one vice president
served as veep to two
different presidents:
Fernando Lopez was VP of
Presidents Quirino
(1949-1953) and Marcos
(1965-1973).

Fernando Lopez was the only vice
president elected thrice to office: in

1949, 1965, and 1969.

Four children of
former presidents
launched bids for
the presidency.

Two won: Presidents Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo (2004) and
Benigno S. Aquino III (2010)

Two Lost: Senator Sergio
Osmena Jr. (1 969) and Vice
President Salvador H. Laurel (1992)

Since 1 986, all five elected presidents and vice
presidents have hailed from Luzon:

AQUINO (Tarlac) - LAUREL (Batangas)

RAMOS (Pangasinan) - ESTRADA (San Juan, Metro Manila)

ESTRADA (San Juan, Metro Manila) - ARROYO (Pampanga)^

ARROYO (Pampanga)- DE CASTRO (Manila) .

AQUINO III (Tarlac) - BINAY (Makati, Metro Manila)

<§) PANGASINAN

® TARLAC

PAMPANGA
METRO MANILA

-<g) BATANGAS

PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS BY THE NUMBERS

6 Six presidents broke away from their

original political parties in their bids for
higher office:

S LIBERAL 7 * S LIBERAL 7 /

W-rnpMr

V m M w m / nationalist

people’s

MANUEL ROXAS

COALITION

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

Established Nacionalista
Party-Liberal Wing (later
Liberal Party)

RAMON MAGSAYSAY
Left Liberal Party (LP) to run
as Nacionalista Party (NP)
standard bearer

FERDINAND E. MARCOS

Left LP to run as NP
standard bearer

FIDEL V. RAMOS

Left Laban ng Demokratikong
Pilipino (LDP) and established
Lakas ng EDSA (later
Lakas-NUCD, currently
Lakas-CMD)

Left the LP to establish Partido
ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) for
aborted Presidential bid in
1992. Coalesced with Eduardo
Cojuangco Jr.’s Nationalist
People’s Coalition (NPC) and
won as vice president.
Established Laban ng
Makabayang Masang Pilipino
(LAMMP) coalition with PMP
as vehicle for his presidential
bid in 1998.

- K -

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
Left LDP to establish Kabalikat
ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI)
for her abortive presidential bid
in 1998. Coalesced with Jose de
Venecia’s Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
and won as vice president.
Organized K-4 coalition with
Lakas-KAMPI as vehicle for
her presidential re-election bid
in 2004.

The first seven elected presidents and
vice presidents were geopolitically
"balanced”— with one candidate from
Luzon and the other from the Visayas or
Mindanao:

1935 & 1941: QUEZON (Tayabas) - OSMENA (Cebu)
1946: ROXAS (Capiz) - QUIRINO (Ilocos Sur)

1949: QUIRINO (Ilocos Sur) - LOPEZ (Iloilo)

1953: MAGSAYSAY (Zambales) - GARCIA (Bohol)

1957: GARCIA (Bohol) - MACAPAGAL (Pampanga)

1961: MACAPAGAL (Pampanga) - PELAEZ (Misamis Oriental)
1965 & 1969: MARCOS (Ilocos Norte) - LOPEZ (Iloilo)

The first Luzon-only tandems were Marcos - Tolentino and
Aquino-Laurel, both in 1986 .

Eight administrations lost the Senate:

Sergio Osmena

Election Year:1 946

Elpidio Quirino

Election Years:1 951 &1953

3 Carlos P. Garcia

Election Year:1 961

Ferdinand E. Marcos

Election Year: 1971

6 Corazon C. Aquino 1

Election Year: 1992

17 Fidel V. Ramos

Election Year: 1998

Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo*

Election Years: 2007 & 201 0

4 Diosdado Macapagal

Election Year: 1965

*Did not run for office hut Senate bets of endorsed candidate did not win majority

Nine vice presidents served in the Senate prior to being elected vice president:

SERGIO OSMENA

(Senate: 1922-1935;
VP: 1935-1944*)

SALVADOR H. LAUREL

(Senate: 1967-1972;
VP: 1986-1992)

ELPIDIO QUIRINO

(Senate: 1925-1931;
VP: 1946-1948)

FERNANDO LOPEZ

(Senate: 1947-1949; 1958-1965;
VP: 1949-1953; 1965-1973)

CARLOS P. GARCIA

(Senate: 1945-1953;
VP: 1953-1957)

EMMANUEL PELAEZ

(Senate: 1953-1959;
VP: 1961-1965)

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

(Senate: 1987-1992;

VP: 1992-1998)

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO MANUEL DE CASTRO JR.

(Senate: 1992-1998; (Senate: 2001-2004;

VP: 1998-2001) VP: 2004-2010)

*Osmena’s term was extended on November 15, 1943

Ten out of 12 elected Presidents hailed from Luzon:

Quezon (Tayabas) _

Quirino (Ilocos Sur)

Magsaysay (Zambales)

Macapagal (Pampanga)

Marcos (Ilocos Norte)

C. Aquino (Tarlac)

Ramos (Pangasinan)

Estrada (San Juan, Metro Manila)
Arroyo (Pampanga)

B. Aquino (Tarlac)

PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS BY THE NUMBERS

PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS

There have been

Presidential elections Senate elections since

since 1935 1916

:Q16 ELECTIONS

House elections
(and four Assembly elections)
since 1907

This will be the 16th, 32nd, and 27th election for
the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives, respectively.

OOOOOOO

OOOOOO OOOOOOO
OOOOOO OOOOOOO

ooo

OOOOOOO

OOOOOOO OOOOOO
OOOOOOO OOOOOO

•••••• •••••••

ooo

••••••• ••••••

i , h h h h h U h h

nnnnnnnnnnnn

seats in the House

(150 seats for a majority)

seats in the Senate

Philippine

Legislatures

THE PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURES

There have been

(including the Second
Republic, which was not
elected)

® 16

Congresses of the Congresses of the
Commonwealth 1 Republic 2

years under a bicameral legislature

(1907-1934, 1945-1972, 1987-Present)

years under a unicameral legislature

(1935-1941, 1943-1944, 1978-1986)

senators were
elected in 1941,
1987, and 1992

— UPPER HOUSE ELECTIONS

senators were elected by senatorial district from 1916 to 1933

(two senators for the 1 2th district were appointed every term during this period)

since 1941, senators have been elected at-large:

senators were
elected in 1946

senators were
elected every
two years from

1947 to 1971 3

midterm elections
from 1 947 to present
(1947, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1963,
1967,1971,1995, 2007,2013)

senators were elected
every three years
from 1995 to present 4

1 The 2nd Congress of the Commonwealth became the 1st Congress of the Republic upon the recognition of Philippine
independence by the United States on July 4, 1946.

2 The first 7 were convened prior to Martial Law; in 1 987, the count was resumed.

3 A ninth senator was also elected in 1 955 to fill the Senate seat of Fernando Lopez, who had been elected vice president in 1 949.
A ninth senator was also elected in 1 955 to fill the Senate seat of Carlos P. Garcia, who had been elected vice president in 1 953.

4 A 13th senator was elected in 2001 to fill the Senate seat of Teofisto Guingona Jr., who had been appointed vice president.

PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS BY THE NUMBERS

Length of terms of members of Length of terms of members Length of terms of members of

the House from 1916 to 1935 of the National Assembly the House from 1946 to 1971

and from 1987 to present from 1935 to 1941

Length of terms of members
of the Batasang Pambansa
from 1978 to 1984

Q number of times an

administration
has lost the
House

Q number of times an

administration has
lost the National
Assembly

* Aquino and Ramos did not
run for the presidency at the
end of their terms, but their
ruling coalition lost the Senate.

number of times an administration has lost the Senate (Quirino in 1951
and 1953, Garcia in 1961, Macapagal in 1965, Marcos in 1971, Aquino*
in 1992, Ramos* in 1998, Arroyo in 2007 and 2010)

number of times an administration has lost the Senate during the
midterms (Quirino in 1951, Marcos in 1971, Arroyo in 2007)

number of times an administration has won in the Senate in a midterm
(Roxas in 1947, Magsaysay in 1955, Garcia in 1959, Marcos in 1967,
Ramos in 1995, Arroyo in 2001, Aquino in 2013)

number of times an administration tied with the opposition in a midterm
(Macapagal in 1963)

PARTIES AND PARTY LISTS

years that allowed for
“block voting,” which
allowed voters to write
the party name on the
ballot instead of naming
the chosen candidates
individually (1941-1951, 1978)

years under the two-party
_ system (1907-1941 ;

" 1946-1972)

seats in the House of
Representatives for party
list representatives as of
2013 (20% of the total
number of seats)

1987-1995

Years when sectoral representatives
were appointed

m
■ s

1998-Present

Years when party lists were elected to
replace sectoral representatives

Longest term served as Senate
President:

Manuel L. Quezon

years
(August 29, 1916-
November 15, 1935)

Shortest term served as Senate
President

Camilo Osias

days

(April 17-30, 1952)

Longest term served as
Speaker of the House:

Sergio Osmena

years

(October 16, 1907-
June 5, 1922)

Shortest term served as
Speaker of the House:

Arnulfo P. Fuentebella

days

(November 13, 2000-
January 24, 2001)

Present Senate President:

Franklin M.
Drilon

(2013-Present)

Present Speaker of the House:

Feliciano R.

C Belmonte Jr.

(2010-Present)

PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS BY THE NUMBERS

VII

PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD

B efore European contact, most of the
major islands in what is now known
as the Philippines had a rich political
landscape consisting of polities 1 — chiefdoms
of varying economic scale and hierarchical
complexity. These societies were said to be
integrated into a regional network through
local-based trading and raiding activities. The
chief, who played a central role in the political
and economic well-being of his people,
controlled and mobilized the goods to forge
relationships among and between different
communities . 2

Early chiefdoms in the Philippines put primacy
on alliances rather than territorial conquest
in expanding their political power. These
alliances derived their legitimacy in three
ways: circulation of prestige goods (such as
porcelain, celadon, jewellery), marriage, and
ritual feasting. The first was a practice used to
unify rulers to elite members of the society . 3
In the case of the second, chiefs strategically
contracted marriage with daughters and sisters
of the political elite and influential commoners.
(In the Visayas, the political power of datu
families could be consolidated by marrying
within their class; they kept their daughters —
known as binokot princesses — secluded and
married them off to other datu families to
forge alliances and establish influence. 4 ) In the

case of the third, chiefs sponsored feasts to
strengthen ties among allies and subordinates . 5

The term used to pertain to chiefs varies.
Throughout the islands, chiefs were called
datu or kadatoan. The word refers to both
a loosely-defined political office and a
social class. The datu derives its authority
from direct descent or lineage from former
rulers. Lower datu, comparable to European
medieval vassals, owe their political allegiance
to a paramount chief or primary datu with
higher rank and precedence, who is known as
pangulo (head), kaponoan (most sovereign),
or makaporos nga datu (unifying chief).
Paramount chiefs on ports and deltas took
Malay-Sanskrit titles like “Rajah,” “Batara,”
or “Sarripada” (variants of the word are
“Salipada,” “Sipad,” and “Paduka”) as a show
of power for the benefit of visiting merchants
and traders.

In Luzon and Visayas, the datu were part of
the ruling class called the maginoo; ginoo was
a title of respect for both men and women.

The datu were defined by their own following
(dulohan or barangay). Usually, four to ten
datu lived with their dulohan in a bayan
(town). These datu should not be confused
with Luzon and Visayas 5 paramount chiefs,
known as the lakan or rajah, and kadatoan

1 Archaeologist Colin Renfrew defines a polity as a political organization, a self governing group of people, generally occupying a well-defined area. Laura Junker emphasizes that

Philippine polities lack “the scale, complexity, bureaucracies, institutionalization, and economy systems similar to Southeast Asian kingdoms and states.” Their structures are more
consistent with the characteristics of a complex chiefdom or paramount chiefdom (from Laura Lee Junker, Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine
Chiefdoms , (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1999), p. 67).

2 Laura Lee Junker, “Integrating History and Archaeology in the Study of Contact Period Philippine Chiefdoms”, International Journal of Historical Archaeology Vol. 2 No. 4

(1998), p. 292.

3 Ibid., p. 309.

4 William Henry Scott, Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society, (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994), p. 128.

5 Junker, “Integrating History,” p. 310

respectively 6 , who dominated the seaports and
deltas for control of trade . 7

Datu were expected to govern their people
with fairness and to settle disputes, to protect
them from enemies and to lead them in
battle. In exchange, the people rendered their
labor, tribute, and tangible support to their
leadership.

Datu were determined not only by lineage but
by consensus among their people by virtue of
their physical prowess, number of slaves , 8 and
their ability to lead.

In a confederacy forged by alliances among
polities, the datu would convene to choose a
paramount chief from among themselves (as
primus inter pares); their communal decision
would be based on a datu’s prowess in battle,
leadership, and network of allegiances.

The datu also assembled to resolve conflict
among themselves, which were usually
agricultural land disputes. A datu with a
reputation of impartiality and discernment was
chosen to judge the matter.

In Mindanao, while the social organizations
in communities were like those in Luzon
and Visayas, some areas that were Islamized
developed centralized governments headed
by a sultan — a position inherited by a direct
descent in a royal bloodline who could claim
the allegiances of the datu . 9 This semi-mythical
genealogical record of the ancestors of the
sultan, called the tarsila, legitimized the
sultan’s claim to power . 10 A sultan had his own

Source: Boxer Codex, c. 1590, courtesy of The Lilly
Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

followers, like those of the datus, but there
were subordinate datus under him.

Examples of these sultanates were the
sultanate of Sulu, and those in the Pulangi
region, the sultanate of Buayan, and of
Cotabato . 11 There are no known records of
elections taking place in these sultanates,
but the sultan took on foreign relations with
other states, and could declare war or allow
subordinate datus to declare war if need be.
The sultan had his court, a prime minister
(gugu), an heir to the throne (Rajah Muda or
“crown prince”), a third-ranking dignitary
(Rajah Laut, or “sea lord”) and advisers
(pandita ). 12

6 Scott, Barangay, p. 128.

7 Ibid., p. 221.

8 Ibid., p. 129.

9 Ibid., p. 175.

10 Cesar Adib Majul, “An Analysis of the ‘Genealogy of Sulu,’” from Readings of Islam in Southeast Asia, (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1985), p. 48.

11 Reynaldo C. Ileto, Maguindanao 1860-1888: The Career of Datu Otto of Buayan (Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2007), p. 3-11.

12 Scott, Barangay, p. 176.

PRE-COLONIAL SOCIETY

According to William Henry Scott, the people of pre-colonial Luzon and Visayas had a three-class
social structure made up of the nobility, freemen, and slaves.

r MAGINOO Ruling class

LAKAN or RAJAH

The lakan or rajah was the paramount datu of a large bayan (town)

The term hari (king) was only used to refer to foreign monarchs;
their viceroys were called halili.

DATU

The datu were maginoo with personal followings (dulohan or
barangay). Usually, four to ten datu lived with their dulohan in
a bayan. A datu’s responsibilities included governing his people,
leading them in war, protecting them from enemies, and settling
disputes. He received agricultural produce and services from his
people, and distributed irrigated land among his barangay with right
of usufruct.

MAGINOO

The maginoo comprised the ruling class. Ginoo was an honorific
for both men and women. Panginoon (sometimes shortened to
poon when addressing them directly) were maginoo who had many
slaves and other valuable property like houses and boats. Lineage
was emphasized over wealth; the nouveau riche were derogatorily
referred to as maygintawo (fellow with a lot of riches).

Members included: those who could claim noble lineage, members of
the datu’s family.

-TIMAWA AND MAHARLIKA Freemen

TIMAWA

The timawa were non-slaves who could attach themselves to the
datu of their choice. They could use and bequeath a portion of
barangay land. In Luzon, their main responsibility to the datu was
agricultural labor, but they could also work in fisheries, accompany
expeditions, and row boats. They could also perform irregular
services, like support feasts or build houses. In Visayas, they paid

no tribute and rendered no agricultural labor. They were seafaring
warriors who bound themselves to a datu.

Members included: former slaves who paid off their debts, and
illegitimate children of maginoo and slaves.

MAHARLIKA (Tagalog only)

The mabarlika (from the Sanskrit mabarddbika, meaning “man of
wealth, wisdom, or competence”) were similar to the timawa, except
they also rendered military service to the datu and paid for their own
equipment and weapons. They also received a share of the spoils.

- ALIPIN (LUZON) / ORIPUN (VISAYAS) Slaves

ALIPIN NAMAMAHAY (Luzon)

TUHAY or MAMAHAY (Visayas)

Alipin namamabay were slaves who lived in their own houses apart
from their debtor. If the alipin’s debt came from insolvency or legal
action, the alipin and his debtor agreed on a period of indenture
and an equivalent monetary value in exchange for it. The alipin
namamahay was allowed to farm a portion of barangay land, but he
was required to provide a measure of threshed rice or a jar of rice
wine for his master’s feasts. He came whenever his master called to
harvest crops, build houses, row boats, or carry cargo.

Members included: those who inherited debts from namamahay
parents, timawa who went into debt, and former alipin sa gigilid
who married or bought their way into namamahay status.

ALIPIN SA GIGILID (Luzon)

HAYOHAY or AYUEY (Visayas)

Alipin sa gigilid were slaves who lived in their debtor’s house and
were entirely dependent on him for food and shelter. Male alipin sa
gigilid who married were often raised to namamahay status, because
it was more economical for his master (as opposed to supporting
him and his new family under the same roof). However, female alipin
sa gigilid were rarely permitted to marry.

Members included: children born in the debtor’s house ( gintubo , or
children of other alipin), and children of parents who were too poor
to raise them.

Source: Barangay: Sixteenth -Century Philippine Culture and Society by William Henry Scott

COLONIAL PERIOD

T he Philippines was originally named
Las Islas de San Lazaro by Ferdinand
Magellan in 1521, then Las Islas
Filipinas by Ruy Lopez de Villalobos in 1543,
in honor of Prince Philip of Asturias (later
King Philip II of Spain).

In the early years of the Spanish colonial
period, the maintenance and administration
of a distant colony proved challenging. The
precolonial barangays were little more than
scattered groups of extended families and
friends, governed by datus. Fray Juan Aduarte
complained that it was “impossible that
teaching shall enlighten them, because of the
inability of the religious to care for and attend
to so many small villages.” Thus, it became
necessary to group the locals into larger
villages through the policy of reduction. 1

Another compromise to alleviate the
substantial deficit problem of the colony
(owing to its distance, small Spanish
population, and dearth of laborers) was to
institute the encomienda system — an economic
system where the Spanish crown granted land
and tax collection privileges to loyal Spanish
subjects called encomenderos (those who
helped conquer the colony) until its abolition
in 1721. The system provided cheap labor to

the encomenderos: all adult males between
the ages 18 to 60 in the encomienda had pay
tribute, most commonly through labor. 2 In
return, the encomendero was responsible for
the protection and baptism of the locals.

Initially, it was practical for the Spanish
colonizers to use the existing political structure
of the local elite (datus and rajahs) in the
polities they encountered. The Spanish made
treaties and agreements with the local elite
to assert Spanish dominion over the land in
exchange for the maintenance of their elite
status and exemption from encomienda
taxation and compulsory labor. 3 Such policies
reduced the likelihood of resistance and
reduced the need for too much administrative
control. 4 Furthermore, these local elites were
authorized by the Spaniards to collect taxes
from the people under the encomienda.

Thus, these local elites became the principales
(members of the new principalia class) —
government officials of the “lowest echelons of
a Spanish-controlled colonial bureaucracy.” 5
From here, the bureaucracy of the Spanish
colonial government in the Philippines was
formed, dividing and subdividing the colony,
while transforming the local elites into local
magistrates in the local government level.

1 Carmen Guerrero Nakpil, History Today (Metro Manila: Vessel Books, 1996), p. 68-69.

2 John Leddy Phelan, The Hispanization of the Philippines (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), p. 95.

3 Ibid., p. 122.

4 Edilberto C. De Jesus, “Gobernadorcillo Elections in Cagayan,” Philippine Studies Vol. 26 No. 1 & 2 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1978), p. 143.

5 Ibid., p. 144.

Most of the positions concerning the national
government of the Philippines were only open
to Spaniards: from the King of Spain and the
Council of the Indies ( Consejo de Indias ) in
Madrid, to the Viceroyalty of New Spain in
Mexico, to the Captain General, Audiencia,
and Residencia in the Islands. 6

The Spanish were also in control of the
government on the provincial level. The
alcaldes mayores, who governed the Islands’
provincias or alcadias mayores (provinces),
and the corregidors, who governed
corregimientos (provincial districts) in the
large provincias, were also Spanish. 7 The
alcaldes mayores depended on the influence
of the friars on the local population, thus
sustaining the control of the Spanish
authorities in provincias throughout the
islands, despite the low ratio of the Spanish
population in the colony. 8

It was only in the level of local government
that the Spaniards opened electoral
participation to the locals. Each provincia was
subdivided into pueblos under the jurisdiction
of the gobernadorcillos , most of whom were
descended from the precolonial datus and
rajahs. Pueblos were further subdivided into
smaller units called barangays , a precolonial
term absorbed into the Spanish social order
of the colony. While a barangay in precolonial
Philippines meant an independent polity united
by blood and lineage, the Spanish-instituted
barangay was a smaller unit in the pueblo
composed of 40 to 50 families, headed by the
cabeza de barangay .

The Ordinances of Good Government of

Summer residence of the Captain General in Manila,

1874. Source: Biblioteca Nacional de Espana

1642, issued by Governor General Sebastian
Hurtado de Corcuera, and revised in 1696
by Governor General Fausto Cruzat y
Gongora, 9 were the first formal attempts
of the Spanish government to regulate the
selection of local leaders. Covering the
four jurisdictions of Tondo, Laguna de Bay,
Bulacan, and Pampanga, Ordinance No. 27
of the document provided instructions for the
electoral process in the mentioned areas which
experienced difficulties during every annual
gobernadorcillo election, causing “ill-feeling
among the [locals], and lawsuits.” 10

Pursuant to the ordinance, the elections
were to be held on the day assigned, during
which 12 cabezas de barangay, the retiring
gobernadorcillo, the alcalde mayor, and the
barangay priest convened. The group elected
three qualified male residents whose names
were sealed on paper with the title “Election of
[such and such] a village, which is sent to the
governor and captain-general of these islands,
through his government secretary.” The sealed
paper was sent to the Governor General in
Manila, who chose one among the three names

6 Roberto Regala, “The Development of Representation in the Philippines,” Philippine Law Journal Vol. XI No. 3 (September 1931), p. 69; Emma Helen Blair and James A.

Robertson, The Philippine Islands Vol. 1, p. 51.

7 Phelan, Hispanization, p. 128.

8 Emma Helen Blair and James A. Robertson, The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898: Vol. I - 1493-1529 (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1903), p. 59.

9 Ibid.

10 Emma Helen Blair and James A. Robertson, The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898: Vol. L - 1801-1840 (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1907), p. 209.

KING OF SPAIN

GOBERNADORCILLO

CABEZA DE
BARANGAY

17TH - 19TH CENTURY

• Composed of 6 to 10 appointed royal councilors

• Governed all the Spanish colonies in the King’s name, and had legislative power

• Served as the court of appeals for the colonies

• Governed New Spain on the King’s behalf

• Initially exercised executive (as Governor), legislative, judicial (as President of the Audiencia ), military (as
Captain General), and ecclesiastical (as Vice Patron) powers

• By 1821 or 1875, the office became Governor General

• Appointed by the King with the advice of the council and probably the Viceroy prior to 1821

• Balanced by the Audiencia

• Functioned as the Supreme Court and advised the Captain General

• Initially composed of four judges ( oidores ), an attorney-general (fiscal), and a constable, with attached
advocates for the accused, a defender of the naturales (“natives”), and other minor officials; the number of
oidores and fiscales would be increased after

• Took charge of government upon the death of the governor up to the arrival of his successor

• If a provincia was large, the alcalde mayor had a corregidor to administer over corregimientos (provincial
district)

• Exercised executive and judiciary powers

• Exercised executive and judiciary powers in the province

• Collected tribute

• Until the mid- 19th century, he had the privilege to engage in trade ( indulto de comer cio), which occasioned
many abuses against the local population

• No provision was made restricting the alcalde mayor to engage in trade, so this “resulted too frequently in
enlisting their interest chiefly in money making and in fleecing the [locals].”

• Administered over a pueblo , assisted by other pueblo officials

• Position was initially restricted to the local married men of the elite ( principalia )

• By 1768, the position became elective. Any person elected acquired elite status, diluting the political power
given by the Spanish to the hereditary datus the old principalia class.

• Administered over a barangay of 40 to 50 families

• Collected tribute in the barangay

• Position was originally hereditary among the local elites of the pre-colonial period

• Position was made elective in 1786; the gobernadorcillo and other cabezas chose a name and presented it to
the Governor General for appointment to the position in a specific barangay.

• After three years of service, a cabeza was qualified for election to the office of the gobernadorcillo.

to hold the position of gobernadorcillo. Special
mentions were made in the jurisdictions of
Calilaya, Balayan, Mariveles, and Cavite,
where the ordinance required the elected
gobernadorcillo to “go to, or send to the
governor in Manila for confirmation of their
office.” The ordinance further required that
elections be held between January 1 and
February 28. Meanwhile, Ordinance No. 5
prohibited incumbent cabezas de barangay
from being nominated to the position of
gobernadorcillo, noting that “one man cannot
well perform two distinct duties.” 11

On February 26, 1768, Governor General
Jose Antonio Raon issued another revision
to the 1642 ordinances. However, due to
maladministration, almost none of the
ordinances were implemented until the
administration of Governor General Rafael
Maria de Aguilar, 12 who had all of the
ordinances (with modifications through
royal decree) printed and distributed to all
government officials on January 17, 1797.

Ordinance No. 79 prescribed the electoral
process for gobernadorcillos. The parameters
were almost the same as that of 1642 but with
a distinction that it required the election to be
held in a “royal building, and nowhere else.”
While the composition of the electorate was
the same, the presence of the priest or friar was
no longer required. Instead, the election was
presided by a justice or the alcalde mayor. Any
man who was elected gobernadorcillo acquired
elite status, diluting the political power given
by the Spanish to the hereditary datus in the

old principalia class. 13 The old principalia was
displaced by a new provincial elite composed
of wealthy Chinese mestizo landowners and
merchants. 14 The result was a consolidation of
power and titles to the colonial government
and, in effect, the abolishing of the basic
precolonial political structures. 15

Ordinance No. 79 applied to Tondo, Laguna,
Cavite, Balayan, Mariveles, Bataan, Pampanga,
and Bulacan. As for “provinces distant to
Manila,” the same rule is applied, with a
warning that “No man shall assume office
without proper credentials.” In Ordinance
No. 81, the rule prohibiting the incumbent
cabeza de barangay from holding the position
of gobernadorcillo was overturned and
amended. 16

In 1786, the originally hereditary position of
cabeza de barangay was made elective. 17 The
gobernadorcillo, in council with other cabezas,
chose a name and presented to the governor
general for appointment to the position in a
specific barangay. After three years of service, a

Gobernadorcillos of Iloilo, ca. 1880. Source: Biblioteca
Nacional de Espana

n Ibid., p. 208.

12 Patricio Abinales and Donna Amoroso, State and Society in the Philippines (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005), p. 84-85.

13 Phelan, Hispanization, p. 123.

14 De Jesus, “Gobernadorcillo Elections,” p. 145.

15 Ibid.

16 Blair and Robertson, Philippine Islands Vol. L, p. 255.

17 Arturo Giraldez, The Age of Trade: The Manila Galleons and the Dawn of the Global Economy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), p. 85.

18 Blair and Robertson, Philippine Islands Vol. I, p. 56.

cabeza qualified for election to the office of the
gobernadorcillo. 18

By the 19th century, the number of electors for
the position of gobernadorcillo was limited
to 13 men, all of whom were former or
incumbent government officials. Fedor Jagor,
who witnessed a gobernadorcillo election first-
hand, described the election:

It took place in the town house . At the
table sits the Governor or his proxy , on
his right the pastor and on his left the
secretary who is the interpreter. All the
Cabezas de Barangay, the Gobernadorcillo
and those who have formerly been such
have taken their places on the benches. In
the first place six of the Cabezas , and six
of the ex-Gobernadorcillos respectively
are chosen by lot to serve as electors.

The Gobernadorcillo in office makes the
thirteenth. The rest now leave the room.
After the chairman has read the rules and
exhorted the electors to fulfill their duty
conscientiously , they go one by one to the
table and write three names on a ballot.
Whoever receives the largest number of votes
is forthwith nominated for Gobernadorcillo
for the ensuing year, if the pastor [friar]
or the electors make no well-founded
objections subject to the confirmation of the
superior court in Manila, which is a matter
of course since the influence of the pastor
would prevent an unsuitable choice. The
same process was followed in the election
of other local officials except that the new
Gobernadorcillo was called in that he might
make any objections to the selections . 19

Despite these ordinances and reforms, the

political system set up by the Spanish was still
notoriously corrupt, even at the local level
where graft and patronage politics abounded.
Spanish representatives from the Philippines,
coupled with the revolts that erupted in
the Spanish colonies in Central and South
America, convinced the Ministry of Colonies
to push for a more liberal system of local
government. Hence, the Maura Law was
promulgated on May 19, 1893. 20 Authored
by Minister of Colonies Antonio Maura y
Montaner, the law was intended to bolster the
efficiency of local government by reorganizing
it. It subsequently changed some positions
in the bureaucracy and introduced new
electorates.

Under the new law, the provincia was
put under the jurisdiction of a provincial
governor assisted by the junta provincial
(provincial council). The provinces were
divided into the municipios (formerly called
pueblos), each administered by the tribunal
municipal (municipal councils) headed by
a capitan municipal (municipal captain).

The capitan municipal was equivalent to the
gobernadorcillo before the Maura Law was
issued.

This municipal council — composed the
municipal captain, the chief lieutenant, the
lieutenant of police, the lieutenant of fields
and the lieutenant of livestock — was in charge
of the administration and affairs of the
municipality. 21

During the election of the municipal council,
all its five members were to be elected by
a plurality vote through secret balloting.

19 Fedor Jagor, Reisen in den Philippinen (Berlin: 1873), p. 189-190.

20 Jose P. Laurel, Local Government in the Philippines (Manila: La Pilarica Press, 1936), p. 35-36.

21 Ibid., p. 37.

Municipal building in Tuguegarao, 1877. Source: Fitipinas
1870-1898 by Bias Sierra De la Calle

The electorate was expanded to include the
residents of the municipios as well, not just the
former gobernadorcillos and six incumbent
cabezas. The provincial governor, together
with the parish priest and outgoing municipal
captain, designated twelve residents of the
municipality to serve as the electorate. Six of
them were chosen from the former cabezas de
barangay and had to have held office without
negative record for ten consecutive years;
three were chosen from former municipal
captains; and the last three were among
the municipality’s principal taxpayers not
belonging to any of the groups mentioned.

If there were not enough former cabezas de
barangay to form the required six, former
municipal captains filled their spots. If
the number was still insufficient, principal
taxpayers were chosen. 22

The following residents were banned from

appointment to the electorate: (1) residents
who were prosecuted and imprisoned in the
past; (2) residents who were disciplined for
bad conduct; (3) residents who went under
corporal punishment/disqualification; (4)
residents who were subject to civil interdiction
or vigilance of authorities; (5) debtors to
municipal, provincial, or any other public
treasury; (6) residents who had contracts
with the municipal council, the province, or
the State; and (7) residents who had suits
against the municipal council to which they
belonged. 23

A duplicate record of the election was
confirmed by the electors and revised by
the parish priest and the outgoing captain.
After the election, a notice was given out to
the municipality to inform the residents that
protests against the electoral results must be
filed within three days after the election. After
three days, the electoral result and protests
(if any) were forwarded to the provincial
governor to determine the validity of the
election in the presence of the provincial
council. The results were then submitted to the
Governor General. 24

However, the reformed political system under
the Maura Law never completely solved the
problem of graft and corruption that plagued
the Spanish administration in the country.

It became the root of abuse heaped upon
Filipinos, which eventually resulted in the
Revolution of 1896.

22 Ibid., p. 39.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., p. 40.

MAURA LAW (1893-1898)

T he Philippine Revolution of 1896
began under the leadership of the
Katipunan (the Kataastaasang
Kagalang-galangang Katipunan ng mga Anak
ng Bayan or the KKK), a secret society which
aimed to attain Philippine independence from
Spain. Founded officially on July 7, 1892,
with its foundational documents dating back
to January of the same year, the Katipunan
launched the first nationalist revolution
in Asia. It’s organizational structure was
patterned after the Freemasonry; it was led by
a President of the Supreme Council — the most
well-known of whom was Andres Bonifacio —
and had members in Manila and other
provinces in the Philippines. 1

The Katipunan had political, moral, and civic
objectives. They advocated for freedom from
the yoke of Spain, by way of armed struggle.
They also saw it as their responsibility to help
the poor and the oppressed, and to teach them
good manners, hygiene, and morality. 2

Artistic rendition by EZ Izon. Source: Philippines Free
Press (August 1 969)

? - 1
ml*

Kataastasang Sanggunian

Though the organizational structure of
the Katipunan was constantly in flux, they
formed small branches, governed by the
sangguniang balangay; these small branches
formed into larger provincial councils, town
councils, the sangguniang bayan. All these
were organizations governed by the Supreme
Council of the Katipunan (Kataastasang
Sanggunian), which was composed of a
president (pangulo), secretary (kalihim), fiscal

1 Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, “Araw ng Republikang Filipino, 1899,” January 28, 2015, http://www.gov.ph/araw-ng-republikang-filipino-1899/.

2 Presidential Museum and Library, “The Founding of the Katipunan,” July 6, 2013, http://malacanang.gov.ph/4304-the-founding-of-the-katipunan/.

(tagausig), treasurer (tagaingat-yaman), and
six councilors (kasanguni).

The legislative body of the Katipunan was
known as the Katipunan Assembly, and it was
composed of the members of the Supreme
Council, along with the presidents of the
popular and provincial councils. Judicial
power rested in the sangguniang hukuman,
which were provincial courts that decided
on internal matters; however, judgment
on graver matters (such as betraying the
Katipunan or committing acts penalized by the
organization’s laws) were meted by the “Secret
Chamber,” composed of Andres Bonifacio,
Emilio Jacinto, and Dr. Pio Valenzuela. 3

Elections were held among the recruits by
the casting of votes through a secret ballot.

The first recorded Katipunan election was
on December 24, 1894: the members (kawal)
of the Supreme Council and the leaders of
the Katipunan councils and branches voted
for four most important positions into
office — the pangulo, the kalihim, the tagausig,
and the tagaingat-yaman. 4 The Katipunan
electoral process made sure that the election
results carried the “Authority of the People”
(Kapangyarihan ng Bayan). The kawal relayed
to the secretariat (kalihiman) the votes of
the rank-and-file members of the society
(akibat) within five days of an election so
that final results could be tallied. The ballots
were ciphered into Katipunan code; All the
candidates used aliases. 5

— \

s'* \

A coded document written in Bonifacio’s own hand,
showing the results of the December 1894 election.
Source: Archivo General Mititar de Madrid

A coded document discovered by Jim
Richardson, written in Bonifacio’s own hand,
shows that Bonifacio (under the codename
Maypagasa) received 13 votes; Jose Turiano
Santiago (Tiktik), eight votes; and Manuel
Ureta (Mahusay), one vote.

3 Presidential Museum and Library, “The Founding of the Katipunan,” July 6, 2013, http://malacanang.gov.ph/4304-the-founding-of-the-katipunan/.

4 Jim Richardson, Light of Liberty: Documents and. Studies on the Katipunan, 1892-1897 (Manila: Ateneo de Manila, 2013), p. 44-45.

5 Ibid., p. 45-46.

T he two rival factions of the Katipunan,
started out as mere sangguniang
balangay (councils). Andres Bonifacio
presided over the founding of both. The
Magdiwang was formed in Noveleta, Cavite,
on April 2, 1896, the Magdalo in Kawit,
Cavite, on April 3, 1896. Due to their rapid
growth in membership, the two branches were
elevated by the Kataastaasang Sanggunian
(Katipunan Supreme Council) to the status
of sangguniang bayan (provincial councils),
after which the two groups were authorized
to form balangays under them and to expand
their influence. The rift between the two
groups grew when Spanish forces assailed
Cavite in the latter part of 1896; the rift grew
further after the liberation of Cavite. 1 The two
factions began their own regional government
with separate leaderships, military units, and
“mutually agreed territories.” The rivalry
was limited to the province of Cavite and
some parts of Batangas because these areas
were already liberated and thus revolutionists
could freely move and convene. The rift never
culminated into violence. At times, the two
groups were cordial and fought side by side
against their common foe, the Spaniards. 2

On March 22, 1897, two rival factions of the
Katipunan, the Magdiwang and the Magdalo,
met in the administration building of the friar
estate in Tejeros, San Francisco de Malabon, in
Cavite. 3

/ 7 ,

Jr M

. tft ^ •*++} ' ' *<***£.

r MV»\vU>» At

A4 up-*

'(jwt AUA ( tJlla'rUuJ** ^ brlj

i 'rr

t>< 4

/a. A»«/Vt.1-

■

V Ht

l fA»v<

i+i ^ 4 /

0 0 0

A»A /

# hrt

k»(i

rrf"

'<• A»v A fly /h -

^ *

cUn

0 9

Jtar,

' r< W

>f| At

.Mr

jf**

7 1

A n

MM (f ******

, M

7 M /

U+L

J >W

• j ft *4t*

v\\4 iv*

^ ;4 '

. j cJ

The first page of the “Acta de Tejeros,” signed by Andres
Bonifacio and Leaders of the KKK’s Magdiwang council
on March 23, 1897, which proclaimed that the convention
held at Tejeros the previous day had been so disorderly,
so tarnished by skullduggery, that its decisions were
illegitimate and invalid. Source: Hang Taiata Tungkot sa
Paghihimagsik nang 1896-1897 by Carlos Ronquillo, edited
by Isagani R. Medina

The meeting on March 22 had clear objectives,
according to the memoirists Artemio Ricarte
and Santiago Alvarez: the planned defense of
the liberated territory of Cavite against the
Spanish, and the election of a revolutionary
government. The meeting was first presided

1 Jim Richardson, Light of Liberty: Documents and. Studies on the Katipunan, 1892-1897 (Manila: Ateneo de Manila, 2013), p. 321.

2 Ibid., p. 322.

3 Ibid., p. 323.

over by Jacinto Lumbreras, a member of
the Magdiwang faction, who would later
yield the chair to Bonifacio when it came
time to address the reorganization of the
revolutionary government. The Katipunan
was a well-organized revolutionary movement
with its own structure and officers. It had an
established system that included provincial
units. But during the Imus assembly of
December 31, 1896, proposals to either
transform and revise the organization of the
Katipunan or replace it with a revolutionary
government organization fomented.

Only three months since the Imus assembly
had convened, Bonifacio once again took
his place as presiding officer for the same
purpose of assessing the kind of governing
structure the Katipunan needed in order to
best fulfill its goals. In Imus, no resolution
was made despite an attempt to determine
what the revolutionary government would
be. The convention in Tejeros, on the other
hand, successfully organized an assembly of
predominantly Magdiwang members to elect

leaders for the revolutionary government.
While no one knows the total number of
delegates present in the historic event, 26
names were recorded, 17 of whom were from
Magdiwang (according to Santiago Alvarez) 4 ,
and 9 from Magdalo (according to Emilio
Aguinaldo and Carlos Ronquillo). 5 Ronquillo
also noted that many unnamed participants
were in the upstairs area of the estate house,
which was “filled to capacity.” Some of the
present were also from parts of Batangas and
some provinces to the north, so it is difficult to
determine the exact number of voters present
then.

According to historian Jim Richardson, a
substantial number of delegates present,
though affiliated with Magdiwang, could more
accurately be tagged as “independents” who
did not necessarily support Bonifacio. 6 This
brings in new factors to the election that took
place. Records only mention those who won,
but not the number of votes.

The election results were as follows:

POSITION

WINNER

AFFILIATION

OTHER CONTENDERS

President

Emilio

Aguinaldo

Magdalo

Mariano Trias (independent)

Andres Bonifacio (Magdiwang ally)

Vice President

Mariano Trias

Independent

Andres Bonifacio (Magdiwang ally)
Severino de las Alas (independent)
Mariano Alvarez (Magdiwang)

Captain General

Artemio Ricarte

Independent

Santiago Alvarez (Magdiwang)

Director of War

Emiliano Riego
de Dios

Independent

Ariston Villanueva (Magdiwang)
Daniel Tirona (Magdalo)
Santiago Alvarez (Magdiwang)

Director of
Interior

Andres

Bonifacio

Magdiwang

ally

Mariano Alvarez (Magdiwang)
Pascual Alvarez (independent)

4 Ibid., p. 325.

5 Ibid., p. 326.

6 Ibid., p. 329.

Mariano Alvarez, in a letter to his uncle-in-
law, noted that fraudulence marred the voting
process:

[. . .] Before the election began ,
I discovered the underhand
work of some of the Imus
crowd who had quietly spread
the statement that it was
not advisable that they be
governed by men from other
pueblos, and that they should
for this reason strive to elect
Captain Emilio as President.

These events were greatly upstaged, in memory
at least, by the ensuing tiff that occurred
between Andres Bonifacio and Daniel Tirona.

The latter raised provocations when he
insinuated that Bonifacio was unfit to take
on his position owing to a lack of credentials.
Tirona loudly called for the election of one
Jose del Rosario, a lawyer. The proverbial salt
had been rubbed against the wound — what
vexed Bonifacio most was not so much the
attack on his credentials but rather the lack
of due process. He had, after all, reminded
the assembly gathered at Tejeros that the will
of the majority, however divergent from each
individual’s, must be respected at all costs.

Bonifacio’s resolve would, a day later, become
manifested in a document called the Acta de
Tejeros, which proclaimed the events at the

An artist’s rendering of the estate in Tejeros, Cavite,
based on the oral accounts of Mr. Arsenio Salvador.
Source: The Revolt of The Masses by Teodoro Agoncillo

assembly to be disorderly and tarnished by
chicanery. Signatories to this petition rejected
the republic instituted at Tejeros and affirmed
their steadfast devotion to the Katipunan’s
ideals. This declaration and the intention
of starting a government anew would later
cost Bonifacio his life. He would be tried for
treason by a kangaroo court and sentenced
to death at Maragondon, Cavite, on May 10,
1897.

Contentious as the events surrounding Tejeros
were, the convention was undoubtedly a
pivotal moment in Philippine revolutionary
history. A school of thought argues that the
assembly at Tejeros exposed how the Caviteno
elite had besieged the revolt of the masses.
Another perspective offers the shift from
a revolution of mystical and masonically
organized aims to one adhering to 18th and
19th century rationalist and deist lines, imbued
with the characteristics of principalia used to
command.

FIRST RATIFICATION OF THE PROCLAMATION
OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE

B y June of 1898, Emilio Aguinaldo,
believed that a declaration of
independence would inspire more
fervent resistance against the Spaniards,
and at the same time lead to the possibility
of international recognition for Philippine
independence.

On June 12, 1898, at Aguinaldo’s house
in Kawit, Cavite (then known as Cavite
El Viejo), the Acta de la Proclamacion de
la Independencia del Pueblo Filipino was
solemnly read by its author Ambrosio
Rianzares Bautista, Aguinaldo’s war counselor
and special delegate, in the presence of those
who were invited when the proclamation was
circulated a few weeks earlier. The 21 -page
declaration 1 was signed by 97 Filipino military
men appointed by Aguinaldo, and one retired
American artillery officer, Colonel L. M.
Johnson.

Apolinario Mabini, who arrived late to the
event, objected to the proclamation because he
felt that one military man (Aguinaldo) could
not proclaim a nation’s freedom in the name of
its people; only the people themselves could do
so. Thus, Mabini, as Aguinaldo’s preeminent
adviser, led the move for more Filipino civilian
representatives to ratify the proclamation and
make it representative of the whole country. 2

189S

Source: The Independent

Upon the advice of Apolinario Mabini,

Emilio Aguinaldo decreed the establishment
of the Dictatorial Government ( Gobierno
Dictatorial) on June 18, 1898. The government
bureaucracy was composed of elected
Filipino civilians. The decree established local
governments in municipalities (bayan) and

1 Esteban de Ocampo, “June 12 in the History of the Filipinos,” June 12, 1898 and Other Related Documents (Manila: National Historical Institute, 2009), p. 1.

2 Teodoro M. Kalaw’s annotation from Apolinario Mabini, La Revolucion Filipina Volume 1 (Manila: National Historical Commission of the Philippines, 2011), p. 208.

1898 FIRST RATIFICATION OF THE PROCLAMATION OF INDEPENDECE

provinces (cabayanan) freed from Spanish
dominion. These municipal governments
(pamamahalang sarili ng bayan) 3 were to have
their own assemblies and would elect their
own municipal presidents (puno sa bayan or
pangulo) 4 and officers of police and public
order (pangagalaga at cahusayan sa loob),
justice and civil registry (catuiran at tandaang
bayan), and revenues and property (yaman at
ari). 5

All of the municipal presidents formed the
Provincial Assembly (Sanguniang cabayanan),
with its own elected provincial president
(Punong cabayanan). 6 These government
officers were envisioned to be the foundation
of the Republica. 7 On June 23, 1898, the
Dictatorial Government was replaced by the
Revolutionary Government, making Aguinaldo
president of the revolutionary government
until the end of the revolution. 8

PACIFIC

OCEAN

SIQPUOR

SIARGAO

SURIGAO

SULU SEA

ZAMBOANGA

MISAMIS

CELEBES SEA

Map showing the provinces that ratified the the
Proclamation of Independence

The Proclamation of Independence was ratified
on August 1, 1898, for the first time by 190
elected municipal presidents of ten provinces:
Manila, Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Bulacan,
Bataan, Morong, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, and
Tarlac. 9 The provinces of Mindoro, Tayabas,
Zambales, Pangasinan, La Union, and Infanta
were included in the certified document of

ratification, but the names of the municipal
presidents in these provinces were not
indicated.

The Proclamation was approved by President
Emilio Aguinaldo and certified by Secretary
of the Interior Leandro Ibarra on August 6,
1898. 10

3 Emilio Aguinaldo, “Decree of June 18, 1898 establishing the Dictatorial Government,” from The Laws of the First Philippine Republic (The Laws ofMalolos) 1898-1899, ed.

Sulpicio Guevara (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1994), p. 8.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., p. 7.

8 Charles Burke Elliott, The Philippines: To the End of the Commission Government (Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers, 1917), p. 497.

9 Presidential Communications and Strategic Planning Office, “Ratification of Philippine Independence,” August 1, 1898, http://pcdspo.gov.ph/downloads/2012/06/06112012-

Ratification-of-Philippine-Independence-by-the-Municipal-Pr esidents- August- 1-1898 .pdf.

10 Apolinario Mabini, Revolucion Filipina Volume 1 (Manila: National Historical Commission of the Philippines, 2011), p. 208.

MALOLOS CONGRESS OF

O n June 20, 1898, a decree was issued
by President Emilio Aguinaldo
renaming the Dictatorial Government
into the Revolutionary Government (Gobierno
Revolucionario / Pamunoang Tagapagbangong
puri). The decree, called by historian Nicolas
Zafra as the “organic law of the Revolutionary
Government,” 1 also effectively laid down the
parameters of the Revolutionary Congress
(Congreso Revolucionario or Kapisanang
tagapagbangon) which would be composed of
all the elected provincial presidents (Tagatayo
ng mga cabayanan) that would represent the
Philippine archipelago. For provinces that
have yet to be freed from Spanish authority,
a provisional representative would be
appointed for the time being until the people
of these provinces could elect their own
representatives. 2

The powers of Congress, were: (1) To
implement the laws; (2) to argue and enact
all the laws; (3) to ratify treaties and approve
loans; (4) examine and approve the accounts
of general expenses presented annually
by the Secretary of Finance, as well as all
extraordinary contributions and others that
may be subsequently imposed. 3

On September 15, 1898, the Revolutionary
Congress was convened in Malolos, Bulacan;
thereafter, it has been known in official history

The iconic photograph of 1899 Malolos Congress: digitally
colored, based on written accounts and the restoration of
the Barasoian Church for the 1998 Centennial. President
Aguinaldo sits at the center, as a gentleman reads a
document to his left. Source: Presidential Museum and
Library

as the Malolos Congress. In its inaugural
session, Aguinaldo spoke and congratulated
the delegates in his capacity as President of the
Revolutionary Government. The first move of
the assembly was to elect the President of the
Congress. Pedro Paterno was elected, winning
over his rival Antonio Tuna. 4

Congress, representing the entire archipelago,
was tasked with the ratification of the
Proclamation of Independence, as planned by
Apolinario Mabini. Thus the Proclamation

1 Nicolas Zafra, “The Malolos Congress,” from The Malolos Congress (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1999), 16.

2 Emilio Aguinaldo, “Decree of June 23, 1898 establishing the Revolutionary Government,” from The Laws of the First Philippine Republic (The Laws of Malolos) 1898-1899, ed.

Sulpicio Guevara (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1994), p. 28.

3 Ibid., p. 31.

4 Resil Mojares, Brains of the Revolution: Pedro Paterno, T.H. Pardo de Tavera, Isabelo de los Reyes and the Production of Modern Knowledge (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila

University Press, 2006), p. 24.

was ratified unanimously the second time on
September 29.

Many in the congress were of the opinion
that the body’s primary task was to draft
a constitution for the fledgling republic.
Apolinario Mabini disagreed with this because
the independence of the country was not yet
recognized by the international community,
the government was therefore in no position
to make treaties with other nations. Another
reason he raised was that the constitution was
practical only when the country was at peace.
With its promulgation, the government would
be restrained within constitutional bounds,
which may limit its capacity to defend itself
given the changing circumstances of a nation
at war. 5 He preferred the Chief Executive to be
given full powers for the time being. 6 However,
the majority opposed Mabini’s position. Felipe
Calderon said that by drafting a constitution,
the country was in a better position to push its
claim for recognition. Thus, Congress set out
to draft the constitution.

Three constitutions were proposed. One was
drafted by Mabini, who closely followed the
1812 constitution of the Spanish Republic.

The other was drafted by Pedro Paterno, who
patterned the constitution after the Spanish
Constitution of 1868. The third constitution
was proposed by Felipe Calderon based on the
constitutions of the South American republics,
specifically of Costa Rica. 7

One historic debate in the constitutional
convention was the provision of the separation
of church and state — whether to adopt a state
religion as proposed by Felipe Calderon, or
to separate church and state as proposed by

Tomas G. del Rosario. The first round of votes
resulted in a tie, 25 to 25. With a call at a
moment’s notice, Antonio Funa and members
of the radical faction came and overturned the
tie. 8 It was Pablo Tecson who cast the deciding
vote in favor of the separation of church and
state. 9

The Malolos Congress approved a draft
constitution after many amendments of
Calderon’s draft, on November 29, 1898.

It was returned by President Aguinaldo on
December 1, 1898, for amendments based on
Mabini’s advice, which were refused. President
Aguinaldo conceded and approved the draft
constitution on December 23, 1898. It was
formally adopted by the Malolos Congress
unanimously on January 20, 1899. 10 It was
finally promulgated by President Emilio
Aguinaldo on January 21, 1899.

The constitution provided for three branches
of government; an Executive, headed by
the President and composed of department
secretaries headed by a Prime Minister; a
Congress, headed by a President of Congress
and composed of delegates from provinces
of the Philippines; and a Judiciary, headed by
the President of the Supreme Court and its
Justices. Congress, as representatives of the
different provinces of the Philippines, then
unanimously elected Aguinaldo President
of the Philippines. He was inaugurated on
January 23, 1899, on the same date the First
Republic of the Philippines was formally
established, with the full attributes of a state:
three branches of government, a constitution,
and territory under the authority of a
government with an army.

5 Nick Joaquin, “Mabini, the Mystery,” The Philippine Free Press, July 28, 1962.

6 Nicolas Zafra, “Malolos Congress,” p. 19.

7 Ibid.

8 Jose Alejandrino, The Price of Freedom, (Manila: Solar Publishing Corporation, 1949), p. 107-108.

9 George Malcolm, “The Malolos Constitution: A Filipino Attempt at Constitution-Making,” Political Science Quarterly Vol. XXXVI, p. 94-95.

10 “...it was unanimously approved inside and outside of Congress.” Epifanio de los Santos, The Revolutionists, (Manila: National Historical Institute, 2009), p. 27.

1899 MALOLOS CONSTITUTION

The Malolos Congress votes to ratify the 1899 Malolos Constitution.

JANUARY 20, 1899

Are you in favor of ratifying the | 92 | 0

(1899 Malolos) Constitution ? (100%) (0%)

Yes No

Source: The Laws of the First Philippine Republic (The Laws of Malolos) 1898-1899 edited by Sulpicio
Guevara

PHILIPPINE COMMISSION OF

T he Treaty of Paris was signed

on December 10, 1898, passing
sovereignty over the Philippines from
Spain to the United States. The following
month, U.S. President William McKinley
appointed a commission to determine the
condition of the islands and to alleviate
tensions between the Americans and the
Filipinos. 1

The First Philippine Commission (or the
Schurman Commission) was composed of
five members: Jacob Gould Schurman, the
President of Cornell University; Major General
Elwell S. Otis of the U.S. Army; Rear-Admiral
George Dewey, who was in command of the
U.S. fleet in the Philippines; Colonel Charles
Denby, who had served as the U.S. Minister to
China for 14 years; 2 and Dean C. Worcester,
who had previously spent several years in the
Philippines assisting in zoological expeditions. 3
John R. MacArthur was appointed as
Secretary and Counsel of the Commission,
while Rutherford Corb was selected as
Assistant Secretary. 4

A year later, the Schurman Commission
finished its report, which touched on almost
every aspect of living in the Philippines, from
commerce to education to agriculture. 5 Part

Schurman Commission, from Left to right: Dean C.
Worcester, Charles Denby, Jacob GouLd Schurman, John
MacArthur (secretary), Admiral George Dewey, and Major
General ELwelL Otis. Source: Dean Worcester Photo
Collection

IV of the Schurman Commission’s report
discussed the government of the Philippine
Islands: the Spanish government in the
Philippines, the Filipinos’ desired government
reforms, and the United States’ plan for the
Philippine government. The Commission
reported that the following factors were
detrimental to the proper governance of the
country: limitless autocratic powers of the
Governor-General, the lack of representative
institutions for Filipinos to voice their
concerns, 6 excessive centralization of the
government in Manila, and the overly narrow
basis of suffrage. 7

1 James H. Blount, American Occupation of the Philippines 1898-1912 (New York City, NY: The Knickerbocker Press, 1912), p. 171.

2 Dean C. Worcester, The Philippines: Past and Present Vol. 1 (New York City, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1914), p. 8.

3 Ibid., p. 2-6.

4 Report of the Philippine Commission to the President Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1900), p. 1.

5 Ibid., p. 2.

6 Ibid., p. 81.

7 Ibid., p. 61-62.

1899 PHILIPPINE COMMISSION

However, after interviewing “hundreds of witnesses,” the Commission concluded that Filipinos
generally did not want — and were not ready for — independence at that moment:

“While the peoples of the Philippine Islands ardently desire a
full measure of rights and liberties they do not, in the opinion
of the Commission, generally desire independence. Hundreds
of witnesses testified on this subject to the Commission and its
individual members, and, though they represented all possible
varieties of opinion — many of them being in sympathy with the
insurgents — they were uniform in their testimony that in view of
the ignorance and political inexperience of the masses of the people,
the multiplicity of languages, the divergencies of culture and mode
of life, and the obstacles to intercommunication, an independent
sovereign Philippine state was at the present time neither possible
nor desirable, even if its poverty and internal weakness and lack of
coherence would not invite, and the dissatisfaction of aliens entail,
the intervention of foreign powers with the inevitable result of the
division of the archipelago among them and the disappearance
forever of the dream and hope of a united and self-governing
Philippine commonwealth. The Philippine Islands, even the most
patriotic declare, can not at the present time stand alone. They need
the tutelage and protection of the United States. But they need it
in order that in due time they may, in their opinion, become self-
governing and independent. For it would be a misrepresentation of
facts not to report that ultimate independence — independence after
an undefined period of American training — is the aspiration and
goal of the intelligent Filipinos who to-day so strenuously oppose the
suggestion of independence at the present time.” 8

Local autonomy was another matter.

While Filipinos reportedly did not want
independence right away, they were adamant
about managing their affairs on the municipal
and provincial level, 9 with supervision from
Manila. 10 The Commission recommended
extending civil government to the “civilized”
peoples of Luzon, Visayas, and coastal
Mindanao. 11

Furthermore, the Commission recommended
a bicameral legislature with an elected lower
house and an upper house composed of
both elected members and appointees of the
American Governor-General. However, this
was not adopted until 1916, with the first
(predominantly elective) Senate.

•Ibid., p. 82-83.

9 Ibid., p. 90.

10 Ibid., p. 97.

11 Ibid., p. 119.

1899 PHILIPPINE COMMISSION

FIRST LOCAL ELECTION OF

The town plaza in Baliuag, Bulacan, where the first local election under the Americans took place.
Source: John Tewell

T he first municipal election under the
American occupation was held in
Baliuag, Bulacan, on May 6, 1899.
Major General Henry Lawton gave verbal
permission to the residents of Baliuag to
assemble in the town plaza and elect a captain
municipal or mayor to administer the town’s
civil affairs and to represent the town’s
interests in relation to the occupying forces.
Francisco Guerrero won the election, and the
results were promulgated the following day in

English, Spanish, and Tagalog through General
Field Order No. 8. Thus Guerrero became the
first Filipino official, “by virtue of election by
his peers, holding office in [the Philippines]
under the jurisdiction of the United States.” 1

Although Bulacan was the site of the first
municipal election, the first systematic
municipal governments were not established
in Bulacan, but in Bacoor, Imus, Las Pinas, and
Paranaque. 2 Bacoor and Imus, in particular,

1 C. U. Gantenbein, The Official Records of the Oregon Volunteers in the Spanish War and Philippine Insurrection (Salem, OR: J. R. Whitney, State Printer, 1903), p. 565.

2 United States War Department, Annual Reports of the War Department for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899 Part 2 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing

Office, 1899), xv.

1899 FIRST LOCAL ELECTION

were chosen for an experimental municipal
government scheme because they were the two
most rebellious towns in Cavite, which was the
most rebellious province in the Philippines — if
the scheme could work there, it could work
anywhere. 3 On July 1, 1899, Major General
Lawton and Dean C. Worcester selected men
“whose honesty and friendliness to American
rule were beyond question” as candidates
for election in each town. 4 The men in each
town were then called to elect viva voce their
municipal presidents, who had the power to
appoint minor officials and levy taxes for
public improvements. 5

Encouraged by the results, Major General
Lawton suggested the preparation of a simple
municipal government scheme — similar
enough to the old system, so that the Filipinos
could easily comprehend it, but with added
civil liberties. As a result, General Otis
issued General Order No. 43 on August 8,
1899, which drew up a plan for municipal
government. 6 Municipal governments were
organized successfully in Pandacan, Santa Ana,
San Felipe Neri, and San Pedro Macati (now
Makati), while a slightly different version
of the municipal system was adopted in
Malabon, Polo, Obando, Meycawayan (now
Meycauwayan), and Malolos. 7

The municipal government was administered
by the municipal council, which was composed
of the municipal president and several
headmen, all elected viva voce. As the head of

the municipal council, the president was tasked
with establishing a police force, collecting
taxes and license fees, enforcing regulations
on the traffic and sale of spirits, establishing
and regulating markets, inspecting and
recording the transfer and brands of livestock,
enforcing sanitary measures, establishing
schools, providing for the town’s lighting,
and performing the duties formerly belonging
to the lieutenant of the paddyfields. The
senior headman served as vice president and
ex officio lieutenant of the police. The other
headmen served as the municipal president’s
delegates in their respective barrios and were
tasked with maintaining public order. 8 The
municipal council could also adopt ordinances
and decrees, but only with the approval of the
American commanding officer of the troops
stationed in the town. 9

But the First Republic continued to command
the allegiance of many. In 1900, General
Arthur MacArthur reported that in many
towns that were organized by the Americans, a
revolutionary municipal government operated
in secret alongside the American municipal
government, and often through the same
officials. Many municipal councilors acted as
if they supported the Americans in public, but
helped the Filipino revolutionaries in private.
According to American historian James H.
Blount, this was why the Filipino rebellion was
able to hold out for as long as they did despite
the odds.

3 Report of the Philippine Commission to the President Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1900), p. 177.

4 “Schurman at Manila,” The Indianapolis Journal Vol. 49 No. 184, July 3, 1899, p. 5.

5 Jose P. Laurel, Local Government in the Philippine Islands (Manila: La Pilarica Press, 1926), p. 72.

6 Ibid., p. 71.

7 Report of the Philippine Commission 1, p. 178.

8 Laurel, Local Government, p. 72.

9 Ibid., p. 73.

PHILIPPINE COMMISSION OF

A s the Schurman Commission

was completing its report on the
Philippines, U.S. President William
McKinley gave his third annual message before
the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
on December 5, 1899. He expressed his idea of
sending another commission to the Philippines
to report on the state of public order in the
islands 1 and to help establish municipal and
provincial governments, based on his belief
that civil government should be built up “from
the bottom.” 2

The Second Philippine Commission, also
known as the Taft Commission, was formed
on March 16, 1900, 3 with the appointment of
five civilians: Head of Commission William
Howard Taft, a federal judge; Luke E. Wright,
the attorney-general of Tennessee and a former
Confederate Army officer; Henry C. Ide, a
member of the U.S. Court in Samoa; Bernard
Moses, a professor of Spanish-American
history at the University of California; and
Dean C. Worcester from the Schurman
Commission. 4

The Taft Commission arrived in Manila on
June 3, 1900. 5 However, the Commission
could not establish a civil government because

Taft Commission, from Left to right: Dean C. Worcester,
Henry CLay Ide, William Howard Taft, Bernard Moses
and Luke Wright. Photo was taken in 1900. Source:
Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 website by Arnaldo
Dumindin

the Philippine-American War was still in full
swing. It was only on July 4, 1901, that the
Commission replaced the military government.
It wielded legislative powers since September
1 of the previous year. Upon replacing the
military, the Commission assumed executive
authority, with Taft as the first civil governor.
Governor Taft had the power to appoint
all civil officers with the consent of the
Commission. 6

On the day of the civil government’s
inauguration it was announced that three
Filipinos were to join the Commission on

1 James H. Blount, American Occupation of the Philippines 1898-1912 (New York City, NY: The Knickerbocker Press, 1912), p. 290.

2 William McKinley, “Third Annual Message, December 5, 1899,” The American Presidency Project, accessed July 22, 2015, http://www.presidency.ucsb. edu/ws/?pid=29540.

3 Dean C. Worcester, The Philippines: Past and Present Vol. 1 (New York City, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1914), p. 325.

4 Frank Hindman Golay, Face of Empire: United States-Philippines Relations, 1898-1946 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1997), p. 62.

5 Blount, American Occupation, p. 294.

6 Charles Burke Elliott, The Philippines: To the End of the Commission Government (Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers, 1917), p. 4.

September 1, 1901, 7 in anticipation of
complaints that a small committee composed
of Americans were governing seven million
Filipinos. 8 The Filipino appointees were to
be Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, Benito
Legarda, and Jose R. Luzuriaga, all of whom
were members of the pro-American Partido
Federalista, which was Formed in December
1900, and which favored the annexation of the
Philippines to the United States. 9

Through the enactment of the Philippine
Organic Act of 1902 on July 1, the U.S.
Congress formally approved, ratified, and
confirmed the creation of the Philippine
Commission by President McKinley. 10 While
the Organic Act made no significant changes
in the government that President McKinley
had formed in 1900, 11 it did set the conditions
for a bicameral legislature, with the Philippine
Commission to be made the upper house and
the Philippine Assembly, to be filled by Filipino
assemblymen through popular vote, the lower
house. 12

While the Commission continued to appoint
Filipino commissioners up until its dissolution
on August 29, 1916, Filipino commissioners
had a very limited role in legislation and
national administration. They were treated
more like consultants than actual lawmakers.
The Commission also maintained a greater
American-to-Filipino ratio for most of its
existence; when Filipino commissioners
disagreed with the measures proposed by
their American counterparts, they were simply
outvoted.

This imbalance of power was greatly reduced
with the election of the first Philippine
Assembly in 1907. 13 By 1913, there were more
Filipinos in the Commission than Americans.
That said, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson
still retained the authority to remove Filipino
commissioners if they acted against American
interests. 14

7 Report of the United States Philippine Commission to the Secretary of War For the Period from December 1, 1900, to October 15, 1901 Part 1 (Washington, D.C.: United States

Government Printing Office, 1901), p. 16.

8 Bonifacio S. Salamanca, The Filipino Reaction to American Rule, 1901-1913 (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1984), p. 52.

9 Golay, Face of Empire, p. 76-77.

10 Elliott, Philippines, p. 63.

11 Ibid., p. 64.

12 Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, “The Philippine Organic Act of 1902,” July 1, 1902, http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/the-philippine-organic-act-of-1902/.

13 Salamanca, Filipino Reaction, p. 52.

14 Elliott, Philippines, p. 510.

'SITION OF THE
COMMISSION

1900-1916

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

William Howard Taft
Dean C. Worcester
Henry C. Ide
Luke E. Wright
Bernard Moses
James Francis Smith
William Cameron Forbes
William Morgan Schuster
Newton W. Gilbert
Frank A. Branagan
Charles Burke Elliott
Francis Burton Harrison
Henderson S. Martin
Clinton F. Riggs
Winfred T. Denison
Eugene E. Reed

Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
Benito Legarda
Jose Fuzuriaga
Gregorio Araneta
Rafael Palma
Juan Sumulong
Victorino Mapa
Jaime C. de Veyra
Vicente Ilustre
Vicente Singson Encarnacion

1 As of December 31 of each year

2 As of August 26, when the Philippine Commission was abolished

■ American Commissioners

■ Filipino Commissioners

Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
Benito Fegarda
Jose Fuzuriaga
Gregorio Araneta
Rafael Palma
Juan Sumulong
Victorino Mapa
Jaime C. de Veyra
Vicente Ilustre

Vicente Singson Encarnacion

FIRST GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS OF

O n February 6, 1901, the Second

Philippine Commission passed Act
No. 83, also known as the Provincial
Government Act. It provided for the creation
of provincial governments, each of which
consisted of a provincial governor, a provincial
supervisor, a provincial secretary, a provincial
treasurer, and a provincial fiscal. At first
only the provincial governors were elected;
the rest were appointed by the Philippine
Commission. 1

The Provincial Government Act only provided
a general model for provincial governments;
it did not apply to any particular province.
Special acts had to be passed to extend the
provisions of the Provincial Government Act
to specific provinces. 2 As such, the Philippine
Commission embarked on a tour of 33
provincial capitals to pass the special acts,
to make initial appointments, and to better
acquaint themselves with the lay of the land. 3
The Commission started the tour on February
13, 1901. Pampanga was the first province on
the itinerary. 4

The officials appointed during the
Commission’s tour held office until the
gubernatorial elections, which were held
almost a year later, then every other year
thereafter. The councillors of each organized
municipality in the province gathered at a
convention held in the province’s capital.
Once a presiding officer and secretary were
selected, the councillors elected a provincial
governor by secret ballot. The Commission
then confirmed the selection. If the elected
provincial governor was discovered to be
ineligible, unfairly elected, or of questionable
loyalty to the United States, the Commission
fixed a date for a second convention and
election. If the second election also failed,
the Commission appointed the provincial
governor. 5

The first gubernatorial elections were held
on February 3, 1902. Because the Partido
Federalista was the most popular political
party at that time, most of the elected
provincial governors were Federalistas.

1 Division of Insular Affairs, War Department, Public Laws and Resolutions Passed by the United States Philippine Commission (Washington, D.C.: United States Government

Printing Office, 1901), p.168-169.

2 Ibid., p.168.

3 Reports of the United States Philippine Commission to the Secretary of War For the Period from December 1, 1900, to October 15, 1901 Part 1 (Washington, D.C.: United States

Government Printing Office, 1901), p. 10.

4 Ibid.

5 Division of Insular Affairs, Public Laws, p.168-169.

— r

I LOCOS NORTE

August 20

I LOCOS SUR

August 16

1901

THE PHILIPPINE
COMMISSION AND
THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENTS

^ Provincial government formed during visit
^ Provincial government formed after visit
0 No provincial government formed

START

SAMAR

April 23

Source: Reports of the United States Philippine Commission to the Secretary of War For the Period from
December 1, 1900, to October IS, 1901 Part 1

FIRST LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS OF

1907

O n January 9, 1907, the Second
Philippine Commission passed
Act No. 1582, also known as
Election Law of 1907, which provided for
the organization of the Philippine Assembly.
The Philippine Assembly formed the lower
house of the Philippine Legislature, while the
Philippine Commission constituted the upper
house. 1 Under the Election Law, Manila and
the 35 provinces that fell within mainstream
Christian society were divided into 81 2
assembly districts. 3 Each province constituted
at least one district, while the more populous
provinces had one delegate for every 90,000
people. 4 Each district was to be represented
by one elected delegate at the Philippine
Assembly. This system for representation
excluded provinces inhabited by Moros and
non-Christian ethnic groups, which were still
governed by the U.S. Military.

On March 28, 1907, the Philippine
Commission signed a certificate declaring that
“a condition of general and complete peace”
existed in the Philippines, and although there
were disturbances in Cavite, Batangas, Samar,
and Leyte, the Commission stated that the
“overwhelming majority” of the people living
in those provinces did not take part in them. 5
On the same day, U.S. President Theodore

Source: Phi tip pines Free Press

Roosevelt issued an executive order calling for
the election of delegates to the first Philippine
Assembly. 6

Two political parties contended with each
other in the 1907 Philippine Assembly election:
Partido Nacionalista and Partido Progresista. 7
The Partido Nacionalista was the result of
the merging of the Partido Independista and
the Partido Union Nacionalista, both of
which were pro-immediate independence, on
March 12, 1907. 8 The Partido Progresista
came about as a result of the rebranding of
the Partido Federalista in January 1907. 9 The

1 Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, “The Philippine Organic Act of 1902,” July 1, 1902, http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/the-philippine-organic-act-of-1902/.

2 United States War Department, War Department U.S. A. Annual Reports, 1907, Volume X: Acts of the Philippine Commission Nos. 1539-1800 Inclusive, Public Resolutions, Etc.,

From September 16, 1906, to October 31, 1907 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1907), p. 49.

3 Clarita R. Carlos and Rommel C. Banlaoi, Elections in the Philippines: From Pre-colonial Period to the Present (Makati City: Konrad Adenauer Foundation, 1996), p. 18.

4 Dapen Liang, Philippine Parties and Politics: A Historical Study of National Experience in Democracy (San Francisco, CA: The Gladstone Company, 1970), p. 65.

5 James H. Blount, The American Occupation of the Philippines: 1898-1912 (New York City, NY: Knickerbocker Press, 1912), p. 525-527.

6 United States War Department, Eighth Annual Report of the Philippine Commission (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1907), p. 5.

7 Liang, Philippine Parties and Politics, p. 61-64.

8 Ibid., p. 60-61.

9 Ibid., p. 64.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Philippine Electoral Almanac Revised And Expanded"

See other formats